STATE v MERSEAL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12706 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF M N A A OR F OTN 1974 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - BILL ROSCOE MERSEAL, Defendant and Appellant. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : Daniel J.Shea argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert L. Deschanps II1,County Attorney, appeared Missoula, Montana Harold V. Dye. Deputy County Attorney, argued, Missoula , Montana For Amicus Curiae: Charles Angel argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: June 25, 1974 Decided : JUL 2 3 ~ilcd : JUL 8 8 Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. Application by appellant Bill Roscoe Merseal for an order compelling Carroll B. Copeland, official court reporter for the fourth judicial district, to supply him with one original copy of the transcript of the proceedings in the district court and charge him no more than 7-1/2$ per folio (100 words). Appel- lant intends to reproduce the transcript on his own, for an appeal from a conviction for second degree assault. Appellant is not an indigent. The issue raised is: May a nonindigent appellant in a criminal case compel a court reporter to furnish only the original transcript of the trial court proceedings, and furnish other copies of the transcript himself? In support of his position appellant simply asserts there are no explicit rules concerning the number of copies of the transcript which must be filed on appeal. Rule IV of the Rules of the Montana Supreme Court, 1966, states: "1. In all criminal appeals the Montana Rules of Appellate Civil Procedure may be followed in the preparation of the record on appeal insofar as they are applicable and not in conflict with a specific statutory provision of the Criminal Code. * * * " Rule 10 of the M.R.App.Civ.P. states: "(a) * * * Six copies of each transcript must be lodged with the clerk of this Court for filing. * * *". This Court is clearly entitled to six copies of the trial transcript. The only statute in Montana's Code of Criminal Procedure at variance with the above-quoted rules is section 95-2428, R.C.M. 1947, which comems itself with indigent appeals and is not applicable here. We see no merit in appellant's suggestion that he ought to be p e r m i t t e d t o copy t h e o r i g i n a l t r a n s c r i p t by h i s own methods. A s s u r a n c e s by a p p e l l a n t t h a t modern t e c h n o l o g y would p r o v i d e u s w i t h p e r f e c t l y a c c e p t a b l e c o p i e s o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t , and a t t h e Our c o n c e r n same t i m e s a v e a p p e l l a n t money, m i s s t h e p o i n t . h e r e i s t o p r e s e r v e t h e i n t e g r i t y of t h e r e c o r d . For obvious r e a s o n s , t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l must be i n v i o l a t e . The c o u r t r e p o r t e r consequently i s required t o c e r t i f y t o t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of t h e t r a n s c r i p t . M.R.App.Civ.P. 1947; Rule 9 ( b ) , S e c t i o n 95-2408 (b) , R.C.M. Common s e n s e i n d i c a t e s t h e most p r a c t i c a b l e way of ensuring a c o r r e c t t r a n s c r i p t is f o r t h e court reporter t o keep t h e o r i g i n a l copy i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n a t a l l t i m e s and from Otherwise t h e it m a n u f a c t u r e more c o p i e s a s t h e y a r e needed. r e p o r t e r w i l l be o b l i g e d t o choose between e x p o s i n g h i m s e l f t o l i a b i l i t y o r c e r t i f y i n g e a c h copy made o u t s i d e h i s o f f i c e and recertifying the original. I n a day of i n c r e a s i n g l y voluminous t r a n s c r i p t s , t h i s Court i s n o t a b o u t t o c a s t such a t e d i o u s burden upon c o u r t r e p o r t e r s . I n view of t h e f o r e g o i n g , it i s incumbent t h a t t h e c o p i e s of t h e t r a n s c r i p t needed by t h e p a r t i e s f o r u s e on a p p e a l a l s o be p r o c u r e d from t h e r e p o r t e r . The r e l i e f s o u g h t hy a p p e l l a n t i s d e n i e d . L L. - - f'- -- -" ------- L-*. - - , , , , ,L-----& , , , , - , , , , - - Chief ~ u s t i c e W e concur: / ~' ---- h -'*---, ~-. , - ,' /: ,. ! c&;z< k 7 . L -----------------"-' w.P eit ne rp l a c&+./district J u s t i c e judge, sitting e Daly. G. Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s c a u s e . - 3 - L

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.